Upload
others
View
4
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Ecolabels for Agriculture
David Granatstein Sustainable Ag Specialist
Food Ecolabels
Sustainable Agriculture “A long-term goal”
Economically Viable
Environmentally Sound
Socially Acceptable
Meet the needs of today without
compromising the ability of
future generations to
meet their needs
Not a set of farming practices
A “3-legged stool”
Many Dimensions of Sustainable Ag
Courtesy: Food Alliance
Grower Motivation-Economic Sustainability
Consumer Issues Behind Food Labels
Personal Health • Nutrition, antioxidants (positives) • Absence of toxins, pathogens (negatives) Environmental Health • Water, air biodiversity, toxins Community Health • Family farms, open space, rural economy, food security,
labor, social capital Interconnecting NYC watershed, farm land use to protect water quality,
offset billion $ water treatment costs
Food Labels Product type or quality
Production practices (e.g. organic, IFP, GMO)
Environmental impact (e.g. Dolphin safe tuna)
Origin - local, regional, country
Social impacts (e.g fair trade, family farm)
Future trend - combinations of labels
Food Labels What they do well: • Inform • Motivate • Guarantee
What they don’t do well: • Educate • Change opinion
Traceability (What is the source?)
Transparency (What are the standards?)
Accountability (Have the standards been met?)
Separation of functions ● Standards setting ● Inspection ● Approval
ISO 65 – General requirements for bodies operating product certification systems
Key Elements of Certification
Consumer Research Hartman Group
Motivation for consumers purchasing organic foods: 65% - health and safety 38% - taste 25% - the “environment” Minnesota – Multiple Benefits project
Ave. household willing to pay + $200/yr for significant environmental improvements in ag; but 30% of sample not willing to pay at all; saw no “economic good”
The Hartman Report (1996) Food and the Environment: A
Consumer’s Perspective • National consumer survey commissioned by The Food Alliance, fielded by National Family Opinion • Mailed to 2900 households; 1766 valid responses • Key findings: ♦ significant interest in “earth friendly” foods ♦ many shades of “green” consumer ♦ strongest issues - pesticides, water quality ♦ “green” values not core purchase criteria ♦ don’t expect perfection, won’t tolerate deception
05
1015202530
TN NGM AH YR OV UC
Segments of total population by environmental attitude (%)
(Hartman, 1996)
TN = True Naturals AH = Alternative Healers OV = Overwhelmed NGM = New Green YR = Young Recyclers UC = Unconcerned Mainstream
Properties Suggested by ‘Organic’
Categories in which consumers are willing to pay 30% more for organic
• Organic (international) • Integrated fruit production (Europe, NZ, South Africa) • Natural beef (Oregon Country Beef, Coleman Beef) • Eco-O.K. (Costa Rica) • Café Audubon shade-grown coffee (national) • Wegman’s IPM label (New York) • NatureMark potato (Idaho) • CORE Values Northeast (New England) • Salmon Safe (Oregon) • Food Alliance (WA, OR)
Examples of Food Ecolabel Programs
Organic and Sustainability ● Organic farms vary in their sustainability, as do conventional
● Organic farm A might be more or less than conventional farm B
● Organic farms are more likely to be more sustainable than conventional
Hypothetical distribution of farms on a sustainability index
A
B B
Two Approaches to Ecolabeling Integrated Fruit Production (IFP)
Organic farming
Similarities: • Emphasize bio-intensive management, whole system • Use guidelines, standards, certification, label identity • Restrict materials
Differences: • IFP focus on IPM, organic focus on soil • Synthetics generally not allowed in organic, fewer tools • Organic standards more rigid, less adaptable to locale • Organic more widely known by consumers, higher price • No GMOs in organic
Food Alliance - USA
Courtesy: Food Alliance
Food Alliance - USA 4 levels for each topic; need 75% of points
Work Force Development
Level 1. Employer provides no training opportunities
Level 2. Employer allows limited unpaid leave for employee training
Level 3. Employer encourages workplace training (e.g. tuition)
Level 4. As per Level 3, paid leave provided
Food Alliance - USA
Pest Management – Codling moth
Level 1. Labeled pesticides applied on a schedule
Level 2. Chemical pesticides applied only as needed; determined by monitoring. Traps, models, crop phenology used to determine optimum timing
Level 3. As per Level 2, and alternative strategies used (e.g. mating disruption). Pesticide toxicity “Danger” and “Warning” are avoided
Level 4. No chemical pesticides used, only alternative strategies (biopesticides, mating disruption, augmentation with beneficials)
Social Labels Expand
Fair Trade Sales in North America
020406080
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Sale
s (m
illion
$)
Source: 2003 Fair Trade Trends Report
Few fair trade food products from U.S.
SASA – Social Accountability in Sustainable Agriculture
Sustainability codes: ● Columbia cut flower growers (FLORVERDE) ● CA wine grapes
Will the Market Reward Stewardship Farmers?
YES – organic foods; fair trade and shade grown coffee; Oregon Country Beef; Clover Stornetta dairy
MAYBE – integrated fruit production in Europe
NO – Eco-O.K. bananas; ‘Responsible Choice®’ apple
A label must be based on good research People buy products, not labels
A label will not solve all your problems !